Lemmus amurensis Vinogradov 1924
Bibliographic record
Abstract
30. Amur Brown Lemming Lemmus amurensis French: Lemming de 'Amour / German: AmurLemming / Spanish: Lemming del Amur Other common names: Amur Lemming Taxonomy. Lemmus amurensis Vinogradov, 1924, Pikan, on Zeya River, a tributary of Amur River, Siberia, Russia. Taxonomy and distribution of L. amurensis are not definitely known, and some consider it part of L. sibiricus. Others synonymize flavescens with sibiricus. Two subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. L.a.amurensisVinogradov,1924—fromETransbaikaliaandAmurRiverEalongthe SeaofOkhotskandacrossSchsofVerkhoyanskandCherskiyrangestoKolymaUpland(Russia). L. a. flavescens Vinogradov, 1925 — Kamchatka (Russia). Descriptive notes. Head-body 86-119 mm, tail 9-6-14-7 mm; weight 16-2-51 g. The Amur Brown Lemming is similar to the Siberian Brown Lemming (L. sibiricus) but is considerably smaller and has brighter pelage. Dorsum is brown, cheeks are rusty or yellow-buff, snoutis rusty, and gray venter is usually washed rusty or buffy. Dark medial stripe runs along back. Winter pelage is duller. Females have eight nipples. Skull is less ridged than that of the Siberian Brown Lemming, but interorbital crest is present in adults. No other peculiarities are evident. Molar pattern is essentially like in the Siberian Brown Lemming. Habitat. Marshes, mires, and bogs in larch (Larix, Pinaceae) or birch (Betula, Betulaceae) taiga, floodplains, and wet valleys ofrivers and brooks on mountain slopes at elevations of 300-1200 m. Vegetation cover is mosses; forbs; birch (B. exilis and B. middendorffi); shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphorafruticosa) and spirea (Spiraea, both Rosaceae); Siberian alder (Alnus viridis fruticosa, Betulaceae); Siberian dwarf pine (Pinus pumila, Pinaceae); sedges (Carex) and sheathed cottonsedge (Eriophorum vaginatum, both Cyperceae); and Labrador tea (Ledum palustre), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), and bog bilberry (Vaccinium uliginosum, all Ericaceae). Amur Brown Lemmings occasionally occupy drier spots and rocky slopes but avoid dense coniferous forests. Food and Feeding. Mosses (Dicranum elongatum, D. congestum, Drepanocladus, Brachythecium, Aulacomnium palustre, Hyloconium splendens) are staples in the diet of the Amur Brown Lemming, ¢.80% by volume. They are supplemented with cottonsedge (Eriophorum), sedges, and insects. Breeding. Breeding season of the Amur Brown Lemming occurs in late April-August, and there are no winter litters. Reproductively active females weight more than 19 g. Overwintered females deliver 2-3 litters/season and have more embryos (mean 7-3) than females from early litters (mean 4) that produce a singlelitter. Range of embryos is 3-9. Densities of Amur Brown Lemmings are low at all times, with no wild oscillations typical of the Norway Brown Lemming (L. lemmus) and the Siberian Brown Lemming. Activity patterns. Poorly known, but the Amur Brown Lemmingis active throughout the year. Movements, Home range and Social organization. No information. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List. The Amur Brown Lemming is rare (less than 5 ind/ha) and occurs sporadically throughout its distribution. It is included in the Red Book ofRussian Northern Far East and several other red books (e.g. Magadan and Chukchi). Bibliography. Chernjavskij (1984, 2016a), Dokuchaev (2008), Krivosheev (1984, 1986), Popov (1977), Revin (1989), Shenbrot & Krasnov (2005).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".